Insurer Held Accountable for Misleading Explanation of Policy to Elderly Traveller
Insurer Held Accountable for Misleading Explanation of Policy to Elderly Traveller
The information on this website is general in nature and does not take into account your objectives, financial situation, or needs. Consider seeking personal advice from a licensed adviser before acting on any information.
An elderly gentleman, who submitted a claim on behalf of his injured wife, has successfully resolved his dispute against his insurance company.
The Australian Financial Complaints Authority ruled in favor of the complainant, finding that he had been misled into thinking he had coverage.
The claim was initiated after the man's wife had a severe fall down a flight of stairs during their trip to Thailand. She sustained multiple injuries, including a fractured hip and head trauma, which required her to be hospitalized for more than three weeks. Additionally, to ensure a safe journey back to Melbourne, the claimant had to purchase a business class flight for his wife, allowing her to lie flat and minimize the risk of complications.
Zurich Australia denied the claim based on the policy's exclusion of overseas medical expenses for individuals over 80 years old. However, Zurich claimed to have offered an "upgrade" to the policy, providing medical coverage for individuals over 80, which the claimant did not opt for.
The complainant obtained the policy through a local branch of his bank, referred to as CB, which offered it as a benefit for specific credit card holders. At the time of purchasing the policy, both the complainant and his wife were 81 and 80 years old, respectively.
Making an effort to follow the correct procedure given his limited computer skills, Mr. E visited the local CB branch on June 30. He expected the staff to guide him through the application process for the policy.
Mr. E alleged that the CB staff failed to inform him about the need to "upgrade" the policy in order to ensure adequate coverage for medical expenses. He left the bank under the impression that he and his wife were appropriately insured, even receiving an email confirmation from the insurer stating that the policy had been activated.
AFCA considered the claimant's assertion that a bank teller, referred to as SH, had assisted him during the application process. Despite Zurich's objections, the ruling ombudsman agreed with Mr. E's account.
The ruling acknowledged that SH had neglected to disclose the requirement to "upgrade" the policy, necessary for the claimant and his wife to have coverage, despite the bank being aware of their age. It stated that although SH's actions were unintentional, CB caused the insured party to believe they had suitable coverage.
"Given CB's knowledge of the complainants' age, this omission should have been disclosed," AFCA stated.
"SH's oversight significantly contributed to Mr. E's unwitting failure to apply for the policy upgrade. Furthermore, this omission induced Mr. E to enter into an insurance contract that he believed provided adequate coverage. However, unbeknownst to him, the policy was essentially useless in terms of overseas medical expense coverage for both him and Mrs. E."
Zurich argued that CB employees were not authorized representatives and thus were unable to offer any advice on the credit card insurance being offered. However, AFCA dismissed this argument as an attempt by the insurer to absolve itself of CB's shortcomings, stating that the bank acted, at least partially, in the insurer's interest.
The decision mandates that Zurich accept the claim and provides a compensation of $4000 ($2000 for each complainant) for non-financial losses resulting from the insurer's claim denial and subsequent challenges.
"Throughout the claims process, the insurer's stance has unfortunately caused the complainants, particularly Mr. E, to feel accused of dishonesty," expressed AFCA.
"They also feel that their recollections have been questioned. Moreover, the insurer's position in this claim has been based on flimsy evidence."
Please Note: We do not endorse any specific products or companies. Some content is sourced from third parties, including press releases, and may not be independently verified for accuracy or completeness.
Insurance Australia Group (IAG) has unveiled an ambitious strategy, aiming to achieve over $25 billion in gross written premiums by 2030. This plan, announced during their Investor Day in Sydney, focuses on expanding their customer base to more than 11 million and enhancing shareholder returns. For tradespeople across Australia, this development could have significant implications. - read more
Recent reports indicate a 67% increase in violations of the Life Insurance Code of Practice related to timely income protection payments. This trend is concerning for tradespeople who depend on these payouts during periods of illness or injury. - read more
In a recent joint roundtable, the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority (APRA) and the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) have emphasised the pressing need for reforms in Total and Permanent Disability (TPD) insurance. The regulators highlighted that without prompt action, the sustainability of TPD insurance could be at risk, primarily due to the increasing frequency and complexity of mental health-related claims. - read more
The Australian Prudential Regulation Authority (APRA) has recently imposed an additional $5.5 million capital requirement on KeyInvest Limited, a life insurance company and friendly society primarily offering funeral bonds. This decision follows an independent review that identified shortcomings in KeyInvest's risk management framework and raised concerns about the board's oversight of the insurer's long-term objectives. - read more
Consumer advocacy groups have recently expressed strong opposition to life insurers' proposals to lift existing code restrictions on blanket exclusions for mental health coverage. This move by insurers aims to modify the Life Insurance Code of Practice to allow for broader exclusions related to mental health conditions. - read more
When you’re young, life is all about new experiences and making plans for a promising future. While factors like travel, career, and relationships often take centre stage, one aspect often overlooked is life insurance. It might seem like something to consider later in life, but starting a policy while you're young can be a savvy financial move. - read more
Life insurance is a fundamental component of a robust financial plan, yet its significance is often underestimated. It serves as a safety net, ensuring that your loved ones are financially secure in the event of your absence. Understanding life insurance is the first step towards safeguarding your family’s future. - read more
Life insurance can seem complex at first, but understanding the basics can help demystify this important financial product. At its core, life insurance is a contract between you and an insurer, where the insurer promises to pay a designated beneficiary a sum of money upon your passing, in exchange for premium payments. - read more
Being prepared when it comes to life insurance claims can make a world of difference. Proper preparation helps you prevent delays and denials, ensuring that your loved ones receive the financial support promised by your policy without unnecessary hold-ups. By paying attention to the details, you can streamline the claims process, giving you and your family peace of mind during what is already a stressful time. - read more
Life insurance, a contract between an insurer and a policyholder, is designed to provide financial protection to loved ones in the event of the policyholder's death. For parents, this protection takes on a new level of significance. The birth of a child heralds a profound shift in priorities, with a focus on safeguarding the future of one's family. Hence, understanding life insurance options becomes a crucial aspect of responsible parenting. - read more
Start Here !
Apply now for your free Insurance assessment and price comparisons!
Knowledgebase
Subrogation: The process by which an insurance company seeks to recover the amount paid to the policyholder from a third party responsible for the loss.
No comments yet. Be the first to share your thoughts.